Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance | Page 135

May 14, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

ʻĪmaikalani

Although he was blind, his hearing was keen. He also had two “birds” (guards) who give warning when anyone approached. He reigned in the time of ʻUmialīloa; ʻĪmaikalani was the first chief of Kaʻū who is said to have control over parts of Puna.

ʻĪmaikalani was famed for his stroke that never misses. Famous for his strength and skill in warfare, several chiefs were killed by him in battle.

He had a left thrust and a right thrust which were terrible, and if he threw a long spear to the right or to the left hand there was a roaring as of thunder, and flashes as of lightning, and a rumbling sound as of an earthquake; and if be twirled his spear at his back the dust arose in volumes as whirlwinds. (Fornander)

ʻUmialīloa feared ʻĪmaikalani.

Whenever a bird cried, there was a man. ‘Where is his club?’ Imaikalani asked. ‘On the right side.’ ‘A left stroke will get him.’ When the other lashed he missed, but when the blind man lashed, his opponent was struck from head to abdomen. (Kamakau)

ʻUmi ordered Omaokamau to go and fight Imaikalani. When Omaokamau heard this he proceeded to the home of Imaikalani. When Omaokamau was drawing near the home of Imaikalani the birds sounded a note.

At this note of warning from the birds ʻĪmaikalani said to his men: ‘Say, there is a man.’ The men said: ‘There is nobody.’ ʻĪmaikalani remarked: ‘Watch out.’

While the two men were watching, Omaokamau soon after appeared. The men then said to ʻĪmaikalani: ‘Yes, there is a man, he is coming, and he carries a war club in his hand.’

ʻĪmaikalani said: ‘That is Omaokamau, one of the warriors of ʻUmi; he is well versed in the art of throwing the spear; his main strength is in his right arm, his left is weak; watch him and see when he twirls his war club.’

When Omaokamau came up to the men he stood and twirled his war club. When the two men saw this, they said to ʻĪmaikalani: ‘The man is twirling his club.’ (Kamakau)

When ʻĪmaikalani heard the report of his two men, he stood up and began twirling his club. Omaokamau struck his club to his right, but somehow ʻĪmaikalani warded off the blow by the use of his club and the first blow aimed by Omaokamau missed.

They again twirled their clubs and after a time Omaokamau struck to his left, but again his blow was warded off and he again missed ʻĪmaikalani. After this second miss Omaokamau turned around and returned to Umi.

When he came up to ʻUmi, Omaokamau said ‘The eyes of ʻĪmaikalani are both sightless but his thinking powers are faultless. I fought him for a time, but he warded off my blows so skillfully that I was afraid of him and so I came back.’

While Omaokamau was reporting to ʻUmi, Koi then started off and went as far as the place where the birds were stationed. When he heard the birds give the note of warning, which was also heard by ʻĪmaikalani, ʻĪmaikalani sent his two men to go and see who it was.

When the men came out they saw a man, so they reported to ʻĪmaikalani: ‘It is a large man with dark skin and the hair on his head is curly.’ ʻĪmaikalani replied: ‘That is Koi; he is also very skillful in the use of the war club, but he is strong in the left arm and weak in the right; he is just like Omaokamau.’

When Koi came up to his opponents he began twirling his war club; after attempted strikes, Koi saw that he could not get the best of ʻĪmaikalani and he turned around and returned to ʻUmi – telling him, ‘No warrior can stand before ʻĪmaikalani”.

While Koi was giving his account of the encounter, Piimaiwaa spoke up to Koi: “The bones of a youngster-like you could not be old enough; here are the bones that are well matured.” But, he, too, was unable to best his opponent.

After the lapse of some tens of days, Omaokamau met a man who asked ‘Why is it that ʻĪmaikalani has not been slain by your people?” Omaokamau answered: ‘I don’t know why.’ The man said: ‘He can be slain, it can be done easily. It will not take much of an exertion.’

The man (one of ʻĪmaikalani’s kahili bearers) then told Omaokamau, ‘The birds which sit on the outside are his eyes, and it is by them that he is warned of the approach of any person. On hearing this warning he prepared himself for the conflict.’

‘The men with him are also his eyes; they are the ones who tell him when the enemy is near and this gives him a chance to use his wits and to defend himself. But if the birds and the men are first killed then ʻĪmaikalani can be slain, he will not escape.’

When Omaokamau heard this from the man, he stood up and started off to carry out the advice given him. When he came up to the place where the birds generally sat he crept up cautiously and struck them with his club, killing them. He then turned to ʻĪmaikalani and poked him in the stomach with the point of his club, killing him.

In explaining to ʻUmi how he killed ʻĪmaikalani, Omaokamau said “to kill ʻĪmaikalani, you must first kill the birds and the two watchmen, who are ʻĪmaikalani’s guards and who give him warning of the approach of any person. Kill the birds and the men, then you will be able to kill ʻĪmaikalani. That is how I was able to kill him.” (Fornander) (The image shows Imaikalani, drawn by Brook Parker.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Imaikalani-Brook_Parker

May 3, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Kamakahonu

“The view of the king’s camp was concealed only by a narrow tongue of land, consisting of naked rocks, but when we had sailed round we were surprised at the sight of the most beautiful landscape.”

“We found ourselves in a small sandy bay of the smoothest water, protected against the waves of the sea; on the bank was a pleasant wood of palm-trees, under whose shade were built several straw houses …”

“… to the right, between the green leaves of the banana-trees, peeped two snow-white houses, built of stone after the European fashion, on which account this place has the mixed appearance of a European and Owhyee village”.

“(T)o the left, close to the water, on an artificial elevation, stood the morai (heiau) of the king, surrounded by large wooden statues of his gods, representing caricatures of the human figure.” (Kotzebue, visiting in 1816)

Several large and densely populated Royal Centers were located along the shoreline between Kailua and Hōnaunau. One such center was located along the north end of Kailua Bay at Kamakahonu.

Kamakahonu (lit. turtle eye) was possibly established as early as the sixteenth century by ʻUmi-a-Līloa. It was during the early nineteenth century that Keawe a Mahi, a kahu of Keaweaheulu presided over Kamakahonu, and upon the death of Keawe a Mahi, Kamakahonu became the residence of Kamehameha I.

During Kamehameha’s tenure at Kamakahonu several structures were erected using both traditional materials and techniques and more “modern” materials and techniques.

Kamehameha first moved into the former residence of Keawe a Mahi. He then built another house on the seaward side of that residence, that was referred to as hale nana mahina ‘ai.

This house was built high on stones and faced directly upland toward the planting fields of Kūāhewa. Like an observation post this house afforded a view of the farm lands and was also a good vantage point to see canoes coming from South Kona and from the Kailua vicinity. (Rechtman)

Much of the following is from John Papa ‘Īʻi’s book, ‘Na Hunahuna no ka Moʻolelo Hawaii’ (Fragments of Hawaiian History;) he was a member of the Kamehameha household.

‘I‘i describes that the “King erected three houses thatched with dried ti leaves,” a sleeping house (hale moe) and separate men’s (hale mua) and women’s (hale ‘āina) eating houses. The hale ‘āina belonged to Kaʻahumanu, and as ‘I‘i described:

“This house had two openings in the gable end toward the west, and close to the second opening was the door of the sleeping house. A third opening was in the end toward the upland.”

“There were three openings in the sleeping house. The one in the middle of the west end, one which served as a window on the upland side of the southwest corner, and one mauka of the window. This window lay beyond the men’s house (mua) on the south. The door mauka of the window was the one entered when coming from the men’s house.”

“The door of the men’s house closest to the sleeping house was the one used to go back and forth between these two houses. There was also a door in the end wall on the west side of this house, and two small openings in the south seaward corner, one in the upper side and one on the lower side of the corner.”

“These faced the many capes of Kona and took in the two extremities of this tranquil land and the ships at anchor. However, should the ships be more to the ocean side, only the masts were visible.”

“A fifth opening was a little on the seaward side of the northeast corner, where the upland side of the men’s house extended a little beyond the sleeping house, and it was only through this entrance that the men went in and out. It was near the door that was used to enter from the sleeping house.”

“Near the door facing westward in the mua, was the king’s eating place. On the upper side were large and small wooden containers that served as bowls and platters, together with a large poi container always filled with poi from the king’s lands.”

“The men’s eating house, the sleeping house, and the women’s eating house were at the end of a 7- to 8-foot stone wall that ran irregularly from there to the shore at the back of the hale nana mahina ‘ai. Outside of the wall was the trail for those who lived oceanward of Kamakahonu. Immediately back of the wall was the pond of Alanaio, where stood some houses.”

“Two eating houses were built for Kaheiheimālie and her daughter, Kekāuluohi, opposite the three houses thatched with ti leaves. They stood back of the kou trees growing there at Kamakahonu, both facing northwest.”

“Kaheiheimālie’s eating house had two doors, but Kekāuluohi’s had but one door. In front of her house was a bathing pool, at the upper bank of which were some small houses and that of the king.”

“A stone house was built between the three houses thatched with ti and those of these chiefesses. Its builder was either a Frenchman or a Portuguese named Aikona. He was skilled in such work…”

“When Aikona began building the end and side walls of the house at Kamakahonu he built a third wall between them and arranged stones in the center of this middle wall to from a door.”

“The walls rose together until the house, from one end to the other, was finished. When Aikona later removed the stones set up in the doorway of the center wall, the doorway looked like the fine arched bridge of Pualoalo at Peleula in Honolulu.”

“As he removed the stones, Aikona explained that had they been piled inexpertly, the whole house might have collapsed. This house was well completed.”

“In the stone house were stored the king’s valuables and those of Aikona’s. These valuables were kegs of rum and gunpowder and guns, of which the guns and powder were placed on the inside near the inner wall. “

“Later, another storehouse was built in Kamakahonu, on the north side of the hale nana mahina ‘ai. It had stone walls and was constructed like a maka halau. The upper of its two stories was for storing tapa, pa‘u, malos, fish nets, lines, and olona fiber; and all other goods went into the lower story.”

“The thatching was of sugar-cane leaves, the customary thatching on the house along that shore. Dried banana trunk sheaths were used for the inside walls and were cleverly joined from top to bottom. Banana trunk sheaths were also used in the hale nana mahina ‘ai.”

“After these houses were built, another heiau house, called Ahuʻena, was restored (ho‘ala hou). This house stood on the east side of the hale nana mahina ‘ai, separated from it by about a chain’s distance.”

“The foundation of Ahuʻena was a little more than a chain from the sand beach to the westward and from the rocky shore to the eastward. Right in front of it was a well-made pavement of stone which extended its entire length and as far out as the place where the waves broke.” (ʻĪʻi, Na Hunahuna no ka Moʻolelo Hawaiʻi’ (Fragments of Hawaiian History))

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Kamakahonu map by Rockwood based on Ii-Rechtman

kamehameha_at_kamakahonu-HerbKane

Temple_on_the_Island_of_Hawaii_by_Louis_Choris_ink,ink_wash_and_watercolor_over_pencil_1816

Map of Kailua Bay-Kekahuna-BishopMuseum

Kailua_Bay-Landing-Map-Wall-Reg2560 (1913)-Kamakahonu_site_on_left

Kailua-Bay-Kamakahonu-Ka_Hale_Pua_Ilima_Foundation-HenryEPKekahuna-BishopMuseum-SP_201853

James_Gay_Sawkins,_England,_1806-1878,_Kailua-Kona_with_Hualalai,_Hulihee_Palace_and_Church-Kamakahonu is at left_1852

Hale ʻIli Maiʻa, the Royal storehouse of King Kamehameha I, Kailua, Kona, Hawaii.

Kamakahonu-DMY

Kamakahonu_DMY

Kamakahonu_Cove-1954 (Ahuena Heiau Inc)

Kamakahonu,_Kona

Kamakahonu DMY

Kailua Bay aerial 1960s

Kailua Bay aerial 1940s

King_Kamehameha_Hotel-(the_former_hotel)-1960s-1970s

April 30, 2016 by Peter T Young 2 Comments

Hawaiian Common Law

The first Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case to discuss “the rights common people to go to the mountains, and the seas attached to their own particular land exclusively” in the 1850 Kuleana Act was Oni v Meek (1858.)

Oni, a tenant of the ahupua’a of Honouliuli, O’ahu, filed suit against John Meek, who had a lease over the entire ahupuaʻa. Oni brought suit when some of his horses, which had been pastured on Meek’s land, were impounded and sold. Oni claimed that he had a right to pasture his horses (by custom and by language in the Kuleana Act.)

The Hawai’i Supreme Court rejected both arguments. For over a hundred years, the Oni v Meek case appeared to foreclose claims based on custom. (MacKenzie)

In 1892 the legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Queen Liliʻuokalani passed a law that recognized Hawaiian usage as part of the common law of the Kingdom, together with the common law of England.

An act on November 25, 1892, Act to Reorganize the Judiciary Department, ch. LVII, § 5, 1892 Laws of Her Majesty Liliuokalani, Queen of the Hawaiian Islands, provided for exceptions to the English common law that were “established by Hawaiian national usage.”

This law, which is today known as Section 1-1 of the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS,) provided the basis for the rights of the makaʻāinana (common people) beyond the rights reserved under the Kuleana Act, so as to include whatever was broadly customary as Hawaiian usage prior to 1892. (McGregor & MacKenzie)

HRS §1-1 Common law of the State; exceptions, states, “The common law of England, as ascertained by English and American decisions, is declared to be the common law of the State of Hawaii in all cases, except …”

“… as otherwise expressly provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or by the laws of the State, or fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent, or established by Hawaiian usage; provided that no person shall be subject to criminal proceedings except as provided by the written laws of the United States or of the State. (Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes)

Effective January 1, 1893 and continuing today, common law was adopted “except as otherwise provided … or fixed by Hawaiian judicial precedent, or established by Hawaiian usage….” (HRS Case Notes)

In 1978, the Hawaiʻi State Constitution was amended to specifically recognize traditional and customary Hawaiian practices by adopting Article XII, Section 7:

“The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupua’a tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights.”

In 1995, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court, explained in the Public Access Shoreline Hawaii (PASH) case that “Oni merely rejected one particular claim based upon an apparently non-traditional practice that had not achieved customary status in the area where the right was asserted.” (MacKenzie)

The PASH Court stressed that “the precise nature and scope of the rights retained by (HRS) § 1-1 … depend upon the particular circumstances of each case”.

The Court set out a test for the doctrine of custom, requiring that a custom be consistent when measured against other customs; a practice be certain in an objective sense, “(A) particular custom is certain if it is objectively defined and applied; certainty is not subjectively determined”; and a traditional use be exercised in a reasonable manner.

The PASH Court also clarified that “those persons who are ‘descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the islands prior to 1778,’ and who assert otherwise valid customary and traditional Hawaiian rights under HRS 1-1, are entitled to protection regardless of their blood quantum.” (MacKenzie)

In the ‘Kapili’ case (dealing with entering undeveloped lands to gather, without unnecessarily disturbing the surrounding environment, natural products necessary for certain traditional native Hawaiian practices) the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court noted:

“The statutory exception to the common law is thus akin to the English doctrine of custom whereby practices and privileges unique to particular districts continued to apply to residents of those districts in contravention of the common law.”

“This, however, is not to say that we find that all the requisite elements of the doctrine of custom were necessarily incorporated in § 1-1. Rather, we believe that the retention of a Hawaiian tradition should in each case be determined by balancing the respective interests and harm once it is established that the application of the custom has continued in a particular area.” (Supreme Court, Kapili)

Related to this, in the Pele Defense Fund case, it was determined that, “The nature and scope of the rights reserved to hoaʻāina (tenants) by custom and usage are to be defined according to the values, traditions and customs associated with a particular area as transmitted from one generation to the next in the conduct of subsistence, cultural, and religious activities.”

That case also found that residency of a particular ahupuaʻa was not required for gather, noting, “Unlike other areas in Hawaii, Hawaiians historically crossed ahupua`a boundaries in the Puna district. …”

“…The hunting and gathering patterns in the Puna district are unique because they are influenced, to a large extent, by an active volcano, Kilauea. It can be reasonably inferred that volcanic eruptions in the Puna area force hunters and gatherers to change areas to find plants and animals for subsistence purposes.” (Circuit Court, PDF)

The Pele Defense Fund decision extended rights to non-Hawaiians, noting, “Accordingly, non-Hawaiians could have the same right as Hawaiians, irrespective of Article XII, § 7 if they could prove that their rights were based on custom and usage.”

“The Pele Defense Fund decision concluded with “a permanent injunction against excluding the following persons from entering the undeveloped portions of the land and using the developed portion for reasonable access to the undeveloped portions, to perform customarily and traditionally exercised subsistence and cultural practices:”

“(a) Hawaiian subsistence or cultural practitioners who are descendants of the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778; (b) Person or persons accompanying Hawaiian subsistence or cultural practitioners described in (a); or (c) Persons related by blood, marriage or adoption to Hawaiian subsistence or cultural practitioners described in (a).”

Within the same Hawaii Revised Statues is another important law (§5-7.5) ‘Aloha Spirit’.

‘Aloha Spirit’ is the coordination of mind and heart within each person. It brings each person to the self. Each person must think and emote good feelings to others. In the contemplation and presence of the life force, “Aloha”, the following unuhi laula loa may be used:
‘Akahai,’ kindness to be expressed with tenderness;
‘Lokahi,’ unity, to be expressed with harmony;
‘Oluolu,’ agreeable, to be expressed with pleasantness;
‘Haahaa,’ humility, to be expressed with modesty;
‘Ahonui,’ patience, to be expressed with perseverance.

‘Aloha’ is more than a word of greeting or farewell or a salutation. ‘Aloha’ means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation in return.

‘Aloha’ is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence. ‘Aloha’ means to hear what is not said, to see what cannot be seen and to know the unknowable.

Aloha, it’s the law.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Common Law

April 23, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

If the Newlands Resolutions is Not Valid – What does Hawaii Revert to?

“Queen Lili‘uokalani attempted on Saturday, Jan. 14 (1893,) to promulgate a new Constitution, depriving foreigners of the right of franchise and abrogating the existing House of Nobles, at the same time giving her the power of appointing a new House.”

“This was resisted by the foreign element of the community, which at once appointed a committee of safety of thirteen members, which called a mass meeting of their classes, at which 1,200 or 1,500 were present.”

“That meeting unanimously adopted resolutions condemning the action of the Queen and authorizing the committee to take into consideration whatever was necessary for the public safety.” (New York Times, January 28, 1893)

The Committee of Safety, formally the Citizen’s Committee of Public Safety, was a 13-member group also known as the Annexation Club; they started in 1887 as the Hawaiian League. The Committee of Safety was made up of 6-Hawaiian citizens (naturalized or by birth (American parentage;)) 5-Americans, 1-Englishman and 1-German (none were missionaries and only 3 had missionary family ties.)

On January 16, 1893, the Committee of Safety wrote a letter to John L Stevens, American Minister, that stated: “We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Honolulu, respectfully represent that, in view of recent public events in this Kingdom, culminating in the revolutionary acts of Queen Liliʻuokalani on Saturday last, the public safety is menaced and lives and property are in peril, and we appeal to you and the United States forces at your command for assistance.”

“About 5 o’clock in the afternoon (January 16, 1893,) the USS Boston landed about three hundred men. Each man had two belts of cartridges around his waist and was armed with a rifle. The men marched up to the office of the Consul-General of the United States where a halt was made.”

“The Marines were detached and sent to the American Legation on Nuʻuanu Avenue, while the sailors marched out along Merchant Street with two gatling guns and made a halt at Mr JA Hopper’s residence. About sundown they moved to the grounds of Mr JB Atherton’s and after a stay of several hours returned to the Arion Hall, where they camped overnight.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 17, 1893)

“HE Cooper read a proclamation abrogating the Monarchy and creating a Provisional Government. The proclamation dismissed the present Ministry and the Marshal. The following Cabinet was then read: …”

“… Hon. SB Dole, Minister of Foreign Affairs; PC Jones, Minister of Finance; Captain JA King, Minister of Interior; WO Smith, Attorney-General. (They made up the Executive Council of the Provisional Government.) They will call on the protection of the American Government.”

“At 3:15 o’clock a wagon load of men and ammunition arrived at the Government building.” (Daily Bulletin, January 17, 1893) “Armed volunteers arrived from the Beretania Street Armory to reinforce the force already at the Government building, and were posted over the yard.” (Daily Bulletin, January 18, 1893)

To avoid bloodshed, the Queen yielded her throne on January 17, 1893 and temporarily relinquished her throne to “the superior military forces of the United States”. The Committee immediately proclaimed itself to be the Provisional Government.

Almost immediately following the overthrow, Consulate offices in Honolulu recognized the Provisional Government as the “de facto government of the Hawaiian Islands.” John L Stevens, for the US Legation, acknowledged the Provisional Government on January 17, 1893.

The ‘recognition’ of a state under international law is a declaration of intent by one state to acknowledge another power as a ‘state’ within the meaning of international law. Recognition constitutes a unilateral declaration of intent. It is entirely at the discretion of any state to decide to recognize another as a subject of international law.

A distinction is also drawn between de jure and de facto recognition. If a state is accorded de jure recognition that means all the preconditions under international law for final and complete recognition have been fulfilled. De facto recognition has a comparatively less binding effect, because the legal relationship – though effectively in existence – is only provisional. (Blazek, Swiss Government Portal)

On January 18, 1893, the Imperial German Consulate, Austro-Hungarian Consulate, Consul for Italy, Russian acting consul, Vice-Consul for Spain, Consulate of The Netherlands, Royal Danish Consulate, Consulate of Belgium, Consul for Mexico, Consulate of Chile, Office of the Peruvian Consulate, Consul-General and Charge d’Affaires of Portugal, Consulate and Commissariat of France and Chinese Commercial Agency wrote letters acknowledging (de facto) the Provisional Government.

On January 19, 1893, the British Legation and His Imperial Japanese Majesty’s Consulate-General acknowledged the Hawaiian monarchy has been abrogated and a Provisional Government established.

US President Benjamin Harrison signed a treaty of annexation with the new government, but before the US Senate could ratify it, Grover Cleveland replaced Harrison as President and subsequently withdrew the treaty. (archives-gov)

“On December 18 of the same year, President Cleveland, unimpressed and indeed offended by the actions of the American Minister, denounced the role of the American forces and called for restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy.” (US Supreme Court, Rice v Cayetano)

Act 69 of the Provisional Government called for “a convention to frame a Constitution,” as well as the election of delegates to the convention. (March 15, 1894)

Qualifications of electors to decide who the delegates would be included “Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands, of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have taken the oath by this Act provided …”

“… who shall have paid his taxes for the year 1893, unless exempted by law from paying taxes; who shall have attained the age of twenty years; who shall have been domiciled in the Hawaiian Islands for one year, and shall have caused his name, to be entered on the list of voters of the precinct in which he reside, and …”

“… who is not insane or an idiot, or who shall not have been convicted of a felony, unless pardoned, shall be entitled to a vote for the delegates to be elected from the island on which such voter resides.” (Act 69, Section 4, Laws of the Provisional Government)

These limitations to voting eligibility are generally typical for this time frame. US Women’s right to vote (19th Amendment to the US Constitution) was ratified on August 18, 1920.

The ‘oath’ electors and delegates swore noted that he does “solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God that I will support and bear true allegiance to the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Islands, and will oppose any attempt to reestablish monarchical government in any form in the Hawaiian Islands.” (Act 69, Section 18, Laws of the Provisional Government)

Oaths like these were typical. Following the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who surrendered were required to sign oaths before they could return to their homes (1860s.) It noted, in part, “…I will bear true faith, allegiance, and loyalty to the Government of the United States; that I will support and defend its constitution, laws, and supremacy against all enemies whether domestic or foreign …”

“Further, that I will not in any wise give aid or comfort to, or hold communication with any enemy of the Government, or any person who sustains or supports the so-called Confederate States; but will abstain from all business, dealing, or communication with such persons.” (Schraf)

Today, naturalized citizens “declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic …” (US Citizenship and Immigration Services)

Today, in Hawaiʻi (and elsewhere,) “All eligible public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii …”

“As used in this section, ‘eligible public officers’ means the governor, the lieutenant governor, the members of both houses of the legislature, the members of the board of education, the members of the national guard, State or county employees who possess police powers, district court judges, and all those whose appointment requires the consent of the senate.” (Article XVI, Section 4, Hawaiʻi Constitution)

The Provisional Government convened a constitutional convention, approved a new constitution and the Republic of Hawaiʻi was established on July 4, 1894. Shortly after (from August 1894 through January 1895,) a number of letters of formal diplomatic recognition (de jure) of the Republic of Hawai‘i were conveyed to the Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford Dole.

These included formal letters from Austria/Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Chile, China, France, Germany/Prussia, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain , Switzerland and the United States. (These were countries that had prior agreements and treaties with the Hawaiian Monarchy.)

An August 7, 1894 ‘office copy’ letter notes US President Grover Cleveland wrote to Republic of Hawai‘i President Sanford B Dole, saying “… I cordially reciprocate the sentiments you express for the continuance of the friendly relations which have existed between the United States and the Hawaiian islands”. (This came a year after Cleveland had expressed concern about the actions of the US consulate in the overthrow.)

In his annual ‘Message to Congress’ (1895,) President Cleveland noted, “Since communicating the voluminous correspondence in regard to Hawai‘i and the action taken by the Senate and House of Representatives on certain questions submitted to the judgment and wider discretion of Congress the organization of a government in place of the provisional arrangement which followed the deposition of the Queen has been announced, with evidence of its effective operation. The recognition usual in such cases has been accorded the new Government.”

It’s interesting to note that fifty years prior, on November 28, 1843, the British and French Governments united in a joint declaration and entered into a formal agreement recognizing Hawaiian monarchy independence (Lord Aberdeen signed on behalf of Britain, French ambassador Louis Saint-Aulaire signed on behalf of France.)

The Declaration states: “Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Majesty the King of the French, taking into consideration the existence in the Sandwich Islands of a government capable of providing for the regularity of its relations with foreign nations have thought it right to engage reciprocally to consider the Sandwich Islands as an independent State and never to take possession, either directly or under the title of protectorate, or under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed.”

“The undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, and the ambassador extraordinary of His Majesty the King of the French, at the court of London, being furnished with the necessary powers, hereby declare in consequence that their said majesties take reciprocally that engagement.” (Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics)

However fifty years later, both Britain and France acknowledged the Republic of Hawai‘i through de jure recognition as an independent state. Queen Victoria noted in a September 19, 1894 letter to President Sanford Dole, “We thank you for this communication, and we request you to accept our congratulations on this distinguished mark of the confidence of your fellow citizens …”

“… and we offer you our best wishes for your health and welfare, and for the prosperity of the Republic over which you preside.” Casimir Perier, President of the Republic of France, sent similar sentiments and congratulations to President Sanford Dole.

Hawai‘i was later annexed to the US through the Newlands Resolution. “The Newlands Resolution further provided that all ‘property and rights’ in the ceded lands ‘are vested in the United States of America.’” “Two years later, Congress established a government for the Territory of Hawai‘i. … The Organic Act reiterated the Newlands Resolution and made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in ‘absolute fee’ under that resolution.”

“In 1959, Congress admitted Hawai‘i to the Union (hereinafter Admission Act). Under the Admission Act, with exceptions not relevant here, ‘the United States grant[ed] to the State of Hawai‘i, effective upon its admission into the Union, the United States’ title to all the public lands and other public property within the boundaries of the State of Hawai‘i, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.’”

“In 1993, Congress enacted a joint resolution ‘to acknowledge the historic significance of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, to express its deep regret to the Native Hawaiian people, and to support the reconciliation efforts of the State of Hawai‘i and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians.’ Joint Resolution to Acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the January 17, 1893 Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, … (hereinafter Apology Resolution).”

“The Apology Resolution did not strip Hawai‘i of its sovereign authority to alienate the lands the United States held in absolute fee and granted to the State upon its admission to the Union.” (US Supreme Court)

A later Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case noted (in 2014,) “The US Supreme Court reversed this court, holding that the Apology Resolution did not confer substantive rights or have a substantive legal effect. Thus, the Apology Bill cannot serve to support a fundamental right to nation-building”. (SCWC-29794)

It’s interesting to note the Supreme Court’s repeated references to the Republic of Hawai‘i, Annexation, Territory, Newlands Resolution, Admission Act, State, etc.

Even with repeated judicial acknowledgement of Newlands Resolution, some have suggested the Newlands Resolution was not done properly. As such, they suggest the monarchy remains.

However, there were two internationally recognized entities that followed the Hawaiian Monarchy – the Provisional Government (with international de facto recognition) and the Republic of Hawai‘i (with international de jure recognition.)

The last being the Republic of Hawai‘i, that negotiated and agreed to the terms of the Newlands Resolution … that led to annexation, territorial status and Hawai‘i becoming the 50th state.

So, a point to ponder, if the Newlands resolution is not valid – what does Hawai‘i revert to?

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

1845 (May) - Feb 1893 The current Hawaiian flag introduced in 1845

April 14, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Huliheʻe, Its Owners and Visitors

John Adams Kuakini was born about 1789 with the name Kaluaikonahale, the son of Keʻeaumoku and his wife Nāmāhana. His sisters were Queen Kaʻahumanu (Kamehameha’s favorite wife who later became the powerful Queen Regent and Kuhina nui,) Kalākua Kaheiheimālie and Namahana-o-Piʻia (also queens of Kamehameha) and brother George Cox Kahekili Keʻeaumoku.

He married Analeʻa (Ane or Annie) Keohokālole; they had no children. (She later married Caesar Kapaʻakea. That union produced several children (including the future King Kalākaua and Queen Liliʻuokalani.))

In 1838, Kuakini built Huliheʻe as his primary residence; a structure that exemplified Hawaiʻi’s ability to build modern structures; it is a two-story stone structure with a symmetrical floor plan that has strong similarities to a New England style house. These similarities were readily apparent to foreign visitors.

In 1838, a visitor who witnessed the palace under construction wrote: “It is of stone and as handsome a building as I have seen in the islands …. It is two story, has three rooms above and below, a lanai in front the whole length and a piazza back, the lower part painted marble color and the upper green. He has much of the Koa in it which is almost as nice as mahogany.” (NPS)

Huliheʻe Palace was a source of great pride for its builder and he would regularly show the palace off to foreign visitors to the island. Kuakini died December 9, 1844 in Kailua-Kona; Huliheʻe passed to his hānai son, William Pitt Leleiōhoku.

Leleiōhoku died a few months later, leaving Huliheʻe to his wife, Princess Ruth Luka Keʻelikōlani. It became a favorite retreat for members of the Hawaiian royal family.

Following Kuakini’s death, Amos Cooke and Thomas Rooke took the children of the Chiefs’ Childrens’ School (Royal School) on a visit to Kona, arriving on July 11, 1846. Cooke noted in his journal:

“… we landed at Kailua, & were escorted to the large stone house, builed by John Adams. It had been cleared of its furniture, but mats were plenty & we occupied them for beds. Our meals were cooked on board the vessel & brought on shore.”

“The house had three large rooms above 5 below. The boys took one end room above & the girls the other. The room under the girls was used as a dining hall while we were there. It was a large & commodious house & must have cost $10,000.”

Later, Kamehameha IV (Ruth’s half-brother, who had visited Huliheʻe as a student at the Royal School) and Queen Emma particularly enjoyed their time vacationing at Huliheʻe, and visited the palace many times with their son, Prince Albert.

Kamehameha IV signed a lease with Princess Ruth for Huliheʻe at $200 per year, with the agreement that additions and repairs made would be deducted from the rental. (Daughters of Hawaiʻi)

The King and Queen purchased the ahupuaʻa of Waiaha; in 1858 they moved to Kona for a 4-month stay. (That visit was cut short with the untimely death of Queen Emma’s hānai father, Dr Rooke.)

In May, 1861 Lady Jane Franklin, widow of a famed explorer, visited the palace. Lady Franklin describes Huliheʻe as “a huge house, with excellent rooms, standing within a grassy enclosure close upon the shore and faced to the sea by a wall of lava blocks. “

“We have the great house all to ourselves, every door and window open, scanty furniture (only a bed, a sofa, tables and chairs).” The future king and future owner of the palace, David Kalākaua, accompanied Lady Franklin on the trip. (NPS)

Shortly after being elected King in 1873, Lunalilo became ill and at the urging of Princess Ruth and Queen Emma went to Huliheʻe to recover. Lunalilo brought the Henry Berger and the Royal Hawaiian Band to the palace throughout Christmas and the New Year to entertain the royalty during the holiday season. Lunalilo never recovered from his illness and died shortly after returning to Honolulu.

Despite owning Huliheʻe Palace, Princess Ruth Keʻelikōlani chose to live in a large hale pili (traditional grass home) on the same oceanfront property. When she became ill in Honolulu, her doctors recommended that she return to Huliheʻe, her Kailua-Kona residence, where they believed she would more quickly regain her health.

She received medical attention, but did not recover. On May 24, 1883, Keʻelikōlani died at the age of fifty-seven at Haleʻōlelo, her hale pili. Per her will, Huliheʻe Palace went to Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop (who died within a year of inheriting the palace.)

Shortly after King Kalākaua finished building ʻIolani Palace in Honolulu (1882,) he purchased Huliheʻe from Pauahi’s estate in 1885 and turned Huliheʻe into his summer residence.

He completed some major renovations so that the palace would more closely resemble the modern structures he saw during his travels. He stuccoed the entire lava rock exterior and plastered over the koa-paneled walls. He felt that the palace was outdated and that these renovations were necessary so that Hawai’i could portray itself to the world as a modern society.

Other changes included enlarging the lanais, and hanging crystal chandeliers, like those he had seen in the United States and Europe, in the entry ways. The ceiling of the palace was given an ornamental cornice and gold leaf picture molding was added in some of the rooms.

Kalākaua felt that these larger and more modern palaces were more comparable to those that he saw when he was abroad, and that they were better suited for the aliʻi to live in. (During the renovation he also demolished Princess Ruth’s grass house that still stood on the property.)

The same year he finished renovation to Huliheʻe (1887,) Kalākaua, under threat of force, signed the ‘Bayonet Constitution.’ The King spent the majority of his time at Huliheʻe Palace after he signed the new constitution.

He continued to make improvements to Huliheʻe while living there and had a telephone line installed in the palace in 1888, which was one of the first telephones on the island of Hawai’i. He continued to entertain foreign visitors at the palace.

In 1889 the Prince and Princess Henri de Bourbon, members of the Austrian royal family, visited the palace and were entertained by the King. Kalākaua died in 1891 and his wife, Queen Kapiʻolani, inherited the palace. Kapiʻolani resided at Huliheʻe throughout the period of the subsequent overthrow.

Upon her death in 1899, the property went to her nephews, Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole and Prince David Kawānanakoa. Fifteen years after the Princes inherited the palace they sold it to a wealthy woman, Mrs Bathsheba Alien, for $8,600. (She died just one month after the transaction.)

For years the property sat vacant and eventually fell into a state of disrepair. In 1925, the Territory of Hawaiʻi purchased the property then turned it over to the Daughters of Hawaiʻi to run it as a museum (which they continue to do today.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger